Opinion
2012-06-13
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Sterling CHRISTIANI, also known as “Stir–God,” appellant.
Neal D. Futerfas, White Plains, N.Y., for appellant. William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.
Neal D. Futerfas, White Plains, N.Y., for appellant. William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, L. PRISCILLA HALL, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.), rendered July 22, 2009, convicting him of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the parties' stipulation was legally insufficient to establish the element of serious physical injury required for a conviction of assault in the first degree is unpreserved for appellate review ( seeCPL 470.05[2] ), and, in any event, is without merit. With respect to the defendant's remaining arguments regarding the legal sufficiency of the evidence, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the defendant committed the crimes of assault in first degree (Penal Law § 120.10[1] ) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03[1][b] ). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( seeCPL 470.15[5]; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor ( see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053;People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).
The County Court correctly denied the defendant's request to charge assault in the second degree ( seePenal Law § 120.05[2] ) as a lesser-included offense of the charge of assault in the first degree ( seePenal Law § 120.10[1] ). The evidence at trial established that the defendant shot at the victim seven times, striking him four times. Viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant ( see People v. Daniel, 37 A.D.3d 731, 830 N.Y.S.2d 319;People v. Hartman, 4 A.D.3d 22, 25, 772 N.Y.S.2d 396), there is no reasonable view of the evidence that would support a finding that he intended to cause the victim physical injury, but did not intend to cause him serious physical injury ( see People v. Serrano, 74 A.D.3d 1104, 904 N.Y.S.2d 711;People v. Brooks, 278 A.D.2d 501, 718 N.Y.S.2d 402). Furthermore, the County Court properly denied the defendant's request to charge reckless assault in the second degree ( seePenal Law § 120.05[4] ) as a lesser-included offense, since, under the circumstances, there is no reasonable view of the evidence that the defendant acted recklessly, as opposed to intentionally ( see People v. Valentin, 185 A.D.2d 865, 587 N.Y.S.2d 371;see also People v. Seabrooks, 27 A.D.3d 494, 810 N.Y.S.2d 331;cf. People v. Moore, 66 A.D.3d 707, 709, 886 N.Y.S.2d 468,affd.15 N.Y.3d 811, 908 N.Y.S.2d 146, 934 N.E.2d 879).
The County Court properly instructed the jury that it was permitted, but not required, to consider, as evidence of the defendant's consciousness of guilt, the testimony of a witness, who was circumstantially connected to the defendant, that the defendant's mother and stepfather visited the witness's home after visiting the defendant in jail, that the defendant told them to “stop by” and visit the witness, and that they were “hoping that [the witness] wasn't testifying” ( see People v. Spruill, 299 A.D.2d 374, 750 N.Y.S.2d 312;People v. Cotto, 222 A.D.2d 345, 635 N.Y.S.2d 623).
During jury selection, the County Court properly denied the defendant's challenge pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky (476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69) without requiring the prosecutor to proffer a race-neutral reason for exercising a peremptory challenge to strike an African–American juror ( see People v. Scott, 70 A.D.3d 977, 897 N.Y.S.2d 138). Although “[t]here are no fixed rules for determining what evidence will ... establish a prima facie case of discrimination” ( People v. Bolling, 79 N.Y.2d 317, 323–324, 582 N.Y.S.2d 950, 591 N.E.2d 1136), one of the recognized methods by which a defendant may establish a prima facie case of discrimination is to “compare the challenged jurors to similarly-situated unchallenged prospective jurors” ( People v. MacShane, 11 N.Y.3d 841, 842, 872 N.Y.S.2d 695, 901 N.E.2d 186;see People v. Bolling, 79 N.Y.2d at 324, 582 N.Y.S.2d 950, 591 N.E.2d 1136). However, here, defense counsel's blanket assertion that the juror was similarly situated to “every white juror on the panel thus far,” referring only to the fact that the juror possessed an associate's degree and was planning on opening her own business, was too broad and too generalized to permit an inference that the primary distinguishing factor that led the prosecution to challenge that juror was her race ( see People v. Scott, 70 A.D.3d 977, 897 N.Y.S.2d 138).
The defendant preserved for appellate review his contention that the prosecutor committed misconduct by referring to him as a “coward” for shooting the victim in the back. While we agree with the defendant that this comment was improper ( see People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 109, 383 N.Y.S.2d 204, 347 N.E.2d 564), the error was harmless, as the evidence of the defendant's guilt, without reference to the error, was overwhelming, and there is no significant probability that the error might have contributed to the defendant's conviction ( see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241–242, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787). The defendant's remaining challenges to the propriety of the prosecutor's remarks during summation are unpreserved for appellate review ( seeCPL 470.05[2] ), and are, in any event, without merit.
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 86, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.